I’ve always wondered if the following is taken into account when ‘green solutions’ are judged, put into action or recommended.

Has the environmental impact of the cost been taken into account?

IE: money costs the environment by way of resources to run a company/organisation/government/individual. Surely sometimes the monetary cost of greener solutions actually results in a negative effect?

Good point solamanda – one of the big questions in ‘green economics’ is what you are prepared to include in the equation. Carbon cedits grip my sh1t as they assume free market trade principles to try and solve the problems caused by the free market – the idea that you can shift your pollution belching guilt by trading carbon shares is morally wrong IMHO

I made a detailed and informative post and on sending it, my connection died and i lost all 6 paragraphs of it.

The short version is, yes is has been taken into account, but we need to be seen to be trying to rectify the damage our species has done to the planet it shares……

I think the trick is finding the green solutions that give the biggest bang for the buck, so that money is targeted sensibly. I was having a laugh at the HIPS report for the house I have just bought as the suggestions were obviously made by a complete numpty (or they just have automated ones, I don’t know which… but I can’t see me fitting solar PV onto a 300 year old town house as they suggested).

The problem is that there is a load of “green wash” out there, and a load of people going for token efforts to be seen to be doing something. Often these aren’t really well thought out, and hence the money used in implimenting them is often wasted.

A true green comparison will use a total lifetime environmental cost type comparison. Greenwashs tend not to.

Stuff like catalytic converters for cars fail the test for total lifetime environmental cost for example. The energy thus polution to extract teh rare metals used in the catalyser and the innefficiancies of the catalyser in real life mean that although they reduce harmfull emmisions when the car is warmed up and running over the life of the vehicle they do not

My point exactly TJ – Pseudo Greenies simply do not wish to deal in the real world.

imho the term ‘green’ is far too simplistic. Are we taking about pollution? OK, what kind of pollution? Air pollution, but what kind of emissions?

Similarly, ‘energy’ is too ambiguous.

I concur, mind you I have been EB greenwashed

interesting point…………………

It’s now more cost effective to ‘mine’ the drit and gravel at the side of the road for platinum/rhodium etc etc etc than it is to dig hole in the ground.

Also, dried sewage waste in Japan contains a higher concentraion of precious metals ($/tonne) than the worlds leading gold mines!

Anyone know the environmental impact of a bike? i.e. the average £80 heap of steel that goes through maybe 2 sets of brake pads and tires in a lifetime before being left to rust? Probably covering 5k miles in total?

Does it realy save 500 litres of petrol (assuming about 40mpg ish)?

Captainjon – did you really want a post grad thesis? Its a complicated area full of spin.

There are a variety of measures that can be used. Using the same measure on different things gives comparisons